Well Pakistan, democracy had a good run.

[Templarios]

What does annoy me is in Britain i keep getting told by Muslims that it is the religion of peace yet never see that.
I have already seen Muslim leaders on the news blaming and condemning American and the West as they murdered Bhutto

Yet, even the Pakistan government and the opposition blame a Muslim terrorist group... hmmm

[Myroria]

I also like how Christians call their religion one of peace.

"I like Christ. But not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[Delfos]

You're assuming terrorist groups are a normal manifestation of Muslim ideals. That's like assuming secret polices or capitalism are normal manifestations of Christian Ideals.

[Myroria]

Christianity is more suited to social capitalism or non-Marxist socialism than capitalism. I'm agnostic, and I know that.

[Zimmerwald]

Please read "Islamic Culture and Democracy: Testing the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Thesis," an article that uses data collected using the comprehensive World Values Survey, for the answer to this question.

[Anniane]

How might a lasting Muslim democracy look, and what aspects of Islam are compatible with what forms of democracy?

"This question" seems a bit vague (aren't all these discussions here a bit meandering?). Are you referring to the above question? Perhaps this would have been more clear had you given a bit of summary or some sort of explanation of how this fits into your point.

Edit: Also, it appears your article is not available for a reasonable price on the web, and is apparently only published in a Comparative Sociology (text?)book that probably isn't much the coffee table book. Could you post a link, or some suggestion on how oen might acquire this piece?

[Delfos]

GC, an answer? never 'the' answer for me.

Myr, yes whatever, it was just an example to how you shouldn't group things like Muslims and terrorism. Hence you made proof of it, Christians or Catholics are allot of things.

*

And I thought: «Al Qaeda, I won't forgive you for this!»
Al Qaeda denies it's involvement in the killing of Bhutto, and I believe Al Qaeda more than Pakistan authorities, I must say. The rumors seem to be false, and Al Qaeda representative say it was theater, Al Qaeda would never attack women. And for that I must believe, if you think they are disrespectful to women because they make them use their costumes, well they have their own costumes that they have to wear, it's tradition (lol, nothing different from the other discussion about the British system). And in the contrary, they are quite respectful of women.

Bhutto's own party members say the government is afraid, they always blamed Musharraf for the assassination, specially because it was weird why so many government policemen and bodyguards and agents around and even then a bomber came to the party.

What do you think?

[Templarios]

GC, an answer? never 'the' answer for me.

Myr, yes whatever, it was just an example to how you shouldn't group things like Muslims and terrorism. Hence you made proof of it, Christians or Catholics are allot of things.

*

And I thought: «Al Qaeda, I won't forgive you for this!»
Al Qaeda denies it's involvement in the killing of Bhutto, and I believe Al Qaeda more than Pakistan authorities, I must say. The rumors seem to be false, and Al Qaeda representative say it was theater, Al Qaeda would never attack women. And for that I must believe, if you think they are disrespectful to women because they make them use their costumes, well they have their own costumes that they have to wear, it's tradition (lol, nothing different from the other discussion about the British system). And in the contrary, they are quite respectful of women.

Bhutto's own party members say the government is afraid, they always blamed Musharraf for the assassination, specially because it was weird why so many government policemen and bodyguards and agents around and even then a bomber came to the party.

What do you think?

I personally dont believe Al Qaeda are respectful to women especially a women (in this case) who is outside the conservative tradition role/view of a women they agree such as Afghanistan before the invasion.

[Delfos]

And from that, you think they're responsible of the attacks?

[Of Crazed]

From what I have heard and understand the attacks were by a group that is an off shoot of the Taliban that are more know for their attacks in Afganastan.  This group focuses their attacks only in Pakistan and is back by Al Qaeda but is not them.  In the last 6 months or so the group has been on offensive causing hundreds of deaths in Pakistan.

What bothers me the most is how the government of Pakistan is handling it.  First we hear its a gun wound, then it goes to a skull fracture.  I have not seen it but reportedly there is a picture of a gun man behind her, and multiple eye witnesses say she was shot.  The government was also quick to blame Al Qaeda.

[Templarios]

And from that, you think they're responsible of the attacks?

No, but disagree with what u said about their views on women.

[Meridianland]

The government was also quick to blame Al Qaeda.

All Pakistan has to do is point to the big bad Al Queda and the Pakistani government comes out looking like a victim instead of being blamed for not protecting Bhutto sufficiently. It's pretty convenient. 

Myro, I see where you're going with linking economies and religion...  You might want to check out the economic theory in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.  It explains why modern capitalism emerged in Europe as opposed to other places on the globe, and links it to Calvinism...  Calvinists though that material wealth was a sign from god that they were chosen for heaven, but Calvisism pretty much kept them from spending their stuff, so it just kept getting reinvested and reinvested.  Combine that with the industrial revolution, et voila... capitalism on a bun.

[Anniane]

The government was also quick to blame Al Qaeda.

All Pakistan has to do is point to the big bad Al Queda and the Pakistani government comes out looking like a victim instead of being blamed for not protecting Bhutto sufficiently. It's pretty convenient. 

I think that irrelevant of the perpetrator, it is still easy to blame the government for "not protecting Bhutto sufficiently".

Personally, I find it less likely than not (33%, perhaps) that the Pakistani government would assassinate Bhutto at this time; it seems a politically  stupid thing. The most likely candidate seems to be a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda (or an offshoot, as OC points out) - their goals fall much more into the death-and-chaos realm. Admittedly, Musharraf has quite a bit to gain from such "chaos" as it fits well with the justification for his own authoritarian rule - but then, why step down as  head of the military? And if his regime did do it, would his administration really believe that it could somehow rally people towards Musharraf for security against Al-Qaeda?

But in the end, I don't know - it's all speculation at this point (excepting the circumstantial evidence put forth by the Interior Ministry of Pakistan). Pointing a finger speculatively at Musharraf is no more knowing than pointing a finger speculatively at Al-Qaeda.

[Meridianland]

Oh ya for sure, but there's no way Musharraf would pass up this chance, on the global stage as well as domestically to some extent, to look like a victim.

[Templarios]

Another thing i don't understand is that they are arguing about what killed her: bullet, sun-roof thingy or shrapnel from a bomb or a mixture of the three. Why was no autopsy carried out especially considering the nature of her death...